Hasn’t the Reina Valera 1960 Been Greatly Used of God?

by Pastor Emanuel Rodriguez

The #1 argument by those who wish to defend the 1960 revision of the Reina Valera is that it has been greatly used to win many souls to Christ and establish great ministries. 

Whenever someone points out the irrefutable facts...

...that the 1960 revision has many changes based in the Critical Text...

...that the 1960 revision has many changes based in Critical Text English Bibles, namely the Revised Version of Westcott and Hort, the liberal Revised Standard Version, and the American Standard Version, according to one of its revisers named Dr. Jose Flores...

...that it was made by a revision team that were of the Critical Text school of thought...

....which was put together and led by Eugene Nida who was an apostate and 100% a Critical Text proponent...

....and was produced by the American Bible Society, which is now part of the United Bible Society, which owns the rights to the RV1960, and is an ecumenical organization that works with the Vatican...

...those who use the Reina Valera 1960 will immediately argue something like “but what about all the souls saved and the great things accomplished with the Reina Valera 1960?”

They love to point to numbers, big audiences, and big ministries, as an argument. They argue this as if good accomplishments have the ability to somehow magically erase obvious error. 

The problem is that one can also argue “but what about all the souls saved and the great things accomplished with the 1909 edition of the Reina Valera BEFORE 1960?”  Was anyone saved before the Reina Valera 1960 was published?  Were any good churches established before 1960?  Was anything great accomplished in the Spanish-speaking world before 1960?

Our complaint about the RV1960 has never been that no one can be saved with it, even though some have falsely accused us of teaching this.  The truth is that we have never denied that souls have been saved with the RV1960, just like we have never denied that souls were saved with the RV1909, and just like we have never denied that souls were saved with earlier editions of the Reina Valera before 1909, and so on and so forth.

We will go so far as to even acknowledge that souls have even been saved with the NIV (in English and Spanish).  I know of some personally.  But does the fact that someone was saved with the NIV justify the very bad corruption in that Bible?  Does that justify the omission of key words and phrases, and even entire verses in the NIV? 

There are American Pastors who use only the KJV but defend their Spanish-speaking missionaries who use the RV1960. They defend the use of the RV1960 due to the many souls saved and the churches successfully planted with it on the mission field.  Would these KJV Pastors be as tolerant of someone using the NIV to teach a Sunday school class in their church or to preach in their pulpit?  After all, the NIV and the RV1960 have some of the very same Critical Text corruptions in them (such as Mat. 5:22, Mark 1:2-3, Mark 2:17, Mark 11:10. Luke 2:22, Eph. 3:9, 1^st Peter 2:2, and many more which we have listed over and over again).  Why is it OK in Spanish but not OK in English?  How is that consistent? Some have even argued "Well, it's not the same thing." How is it not the same thing? This doesn't make sense.

Preachers have said for years that there is enough truth in John 3:16 alone to save the whole world.  I say Amen to that!  But does John 3:16 being correct in Critical Text based Bibles justify all the other Bible verses that are incorrect?  Does the fact that many souls can be saved with these corrupted Bibles, because at least John 3:16 is correct, exonerate all the other places in that same Bible that are corrupted?

If a Bible is 25% corrupt, which is a large chunk of the Bible, that still means that the other 75% is not corrupt.  Therefore, a lot of good can be done with that 75% since every inspired word of God is powerful.  Our argument, however, is that since Jesus said in Matthew 4:4 that “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” is necessary, we contend that a Bible that is more than 75% correct should be preferred. In fact, one that is 100% correct ought to be desired.  What Bible-believing Christian wants to miss out on any of the words God inspired for our spiritual well-being? If anyone thinks that is asking a lot, please remember that it was Jesus Himself who made it clear that even the jots and tittles, the smallest characters of the Hebrew alphabet, were important to God in Matthew 5:18.

In fact, let's do the math for a minute. The late Dr. Jack Moorman of the Dean Burgon Society documented over 8000 significant Critical Text variants in Bibles. Estimations of how many words are in the King James Version vary from 783,000 to around 788,000. 8000 out of 788,000 is 1.01522843%.

We believe that Critical Text variants are corrupt. That means that the most corrupted Critical Text based Bible out there is really only a little over 1% corrupt. Yet that small percentage doesn't stop us from fussing about the Critical Text issues in the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, LSB, etc. Why? Because we agree with the Bible that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

That means that a little bit of Critical Text leaven, even if its only 1%, is too much. We are militant in our conviction for the purity of ALL of God's inspired words and we make no apologies for it. Right? Where is this kind of conviction for the purity of God's words in the Spanish-speaking world? Is it only important in English, but not in other languages?

Even if there is not a 100% pure Bible available in a certain language, doesn’t it just make good sense that the Bible-believing Christian who speaks that language and has to operate in that language should use the Bible available in that language that is the most pure? 

A member of the church I pastor and his wife are retired missionaries. They served in Papua, New Guinea for over 30 years. He told me that for many years the best Bible available in the Pidgin language was the Good News for Modern Man (which, by the way, is also a Eugene Nida Bible based in the dynamic equivalence method of translating).  This is a very corrupt Bible.  Thank God that today a more KJV equivalent Bible is now available in the Pidgin language. When that better Bible was shipped to New Guinea, most (if not all) Baptist missionaries who come from KJV churches immediately switched to it. Isn't that what you would expect them to do? Makes perfect sense, right?

But wait a minute! Was anyone saved in New Guinea for all the years that the best option available to soul winning Christians in New Guinea was a Critical Text Bible?  If souls were saved with the Good News Bible in Pidgin, couldn’t the soul winners who used it argue against the necessity of a KJV equivalent Pidgin Bible since they had already seen many souls saved and churches planted with the Good News Bible? Would that argument be right? Would you agree with that argument? Or is Bible purity important after all?

Many souls were saved with John Wycliffe's English translation in the 1300s as well as the translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and the Bishops before 1611.  Yet, when the King James Version showed up, it wasn't long before objective, intellectually honest English-speaking Christians recognized its superiority. 

Likewise, we are confident that our brothers and sisters in Christ in the Spanish-speaking world will also see the unmistakable purity of the Reina Valera Gómez Bible.  The only ones who cannot see this are those who are not willing to set their emotions aside long enough to be intellectually honest and discern things biblically.  If they would look at this issue with principle and purity in mind rather than politics, personalities, popularity, peers, and pragmatism, it would be impossible to ignore the superiority of the RVG over the RV1960 and other Spanish Bibles in terms of textual purity and faithfulness to the Received Text.

Thank God for the many souls that have been saved with the RV1960! I have loved ones and friends that were saved with the RV1960 and RV1909.  I love them dearly and they love me.

I led souls to Christ with the RV1909 before I ever started using the RVG.  We have seen great soul winners and excellent pulpiteers and wonderful pastors who have built powerful ministries with the RV1960 and other Bibles. 

We would never want to take away from these great men of God and great Christians what they have accomplished for the Lord with what they had available.  We are simply trying to point out that as good as all those things are, Bible purity is also important and should not be dismissed, ignored, nor sacrificed on the altar of great accomplishments.

What Jesus said about His words should be more important than any of our opinions.  He said:

Matthew 4:4  “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Therefore according to Jesus, the integrity of every word that God inspired should be just as important to us as soul winning and church growth.  All of these things are extremely important. Is it too much to ask that the importance and necessity of each be recognized?

One could even argue that the purity of God’s words should be more important to us than numbers.  As Dr. Bob Jones Sr. said, “One man and God is the majority.”

Numbers are great to have.  Bigness is impressive.  But the word of God is the standard.  The word of God is supposed to be the final authority.

The argument that the RVG will stop revival and good results that Christianity has seen with the RV1960 is nonsense. 

The arrival of the RV1960 didn’t stop the good results of Christians that used the RV1909 before 1960.  In fact, the history of Received Text Bibles and their impact on the people of their respective languages only demonstrates that the opposite is true. 

The Textus Receptus was the result of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza wanting to provide the world with a better Latin Bible than the manipulated Latin Vulgate that the Catholic church was using.  That’s why their Greek New Testaments had their own Latin translations beside it in the texts.  The result of their work, which later became known as the Textus Receptus, resulted in a revival of Protestant era Bible translations that turned the world upside everywhere those Bibles went.

When those good Protestant era Bible translations started becoming contaminated by the Critical Texts this was a step backwards. 

The Reina Valera Gomez revision was an effort to restore many pure readings of the original Reina Valera (of 1569 and 1602) and also take it to another level of purity (which Reina and Valera asked for), by incorporating the final edition of the Textus Receptus (which was not available to Reina and Valera) as well as the monumental King James Bible. 

We have no desire to disrespect the very good work of all the very good brethren that use the RV1960.  All we’re calling for is awareness of an even better option than the RV1960. What we're calling for is not unprecedented. Christians switched from the 1909 to the 1960 back in the day. Calling for Christians to adopt a better Bible is nothing new.

We contend that we would see even more fruit and more revival and more souls saved and more great ministries built if all Spanish-speaking Fundamentalists would unify around the most pure Bible in Spanish; the Reina Valera Gomez.

Psalms 119:140 "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."